Under www.marssociety.de an article is reporting today that research on manned Mars Missions has been explicitly excluded from the list of tasks the budget for has been increased by $ 280 mio by the responsible committee.

The german section of the Mars Society as well as the american section are worried that all could turn into a Moon-Only strategy and the american section has called upon thier members to intervene at the Congress.

Working in a company which do engineering in extreme conditions (bottom of the ocean), I know we have to take steps. Yes, we all have a dream of future possibilities, but there's no point in looking at the big steps before we're able to do the babysteps!

Maybe, maybe not. But why do you have that belief that the government, NASA, will get us there first? I know this is a very weak and probably a non-argument, but history doesn't prove NASA very right. At least the last few decades.

Yes they have the resources to pull it off, but will they do it anytime soon? I doubt it. I want see it happen off course, but i doubt NASA will do it. No doubt about it that they have the ability to do it though.

Besides, focussing on one horse is not a safe bet. No matter what subject.

I believe this is NASA's last roll of the dice (to keep the betting theme going), if they fail to reach the moon with Constellation or are beaten by another country or possibly a private endevour then I think that NASA will be shown as being ineffectual to the wider public. In such circumstances I think that there would be a complete reorganisation of the agency, afterall whats the point of spending billions of dollars to prove you're second best.

It wouldn't look good for NASA to continue with the program when others are already on the moon, which is one of the reasons why the USSR stopped when the US got there in the 60s. Then again they may have no choice after spending so much money and realigning itself to meet that goal.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

I don't understand Stefan's post in that manner that he calls NASA's doing betting.

I suppose that by

Quote:

Besides, focussing on one horse is not a safe bet. No matter what subject.

he calls the thoughts of at least a few posters betting - Stefan, am I correct?

If I am right then he indeed recommends the most proper way given the current situation. This situation is that up to now nobody has sent a human to Mars yet. This means that it is unsure who will do that successfully in the future and if at all someone will succeed in that. This can be anyone - even a private company.

I agree that up now all probes reaching Mars successfully and exploring it have been governmental ones - from NASA and ESA mainly - but recall here that ARCHIMEDES will be a private probe, that the communication will be done via private hardware and channels and that one required antenna in Bochum here in Germany sucessfully has received signals from Voyager 1. If ARCHIMEDES successfully arrives at Mars intact and successfully does researchthere and the data successfully are received on Earth then this will be the first example showing that private Mars missions are possible and really work. And this then will increase the chances that manned Mars missions can be done privately also.

I don't think it would look good in the general publics eye for an organisation getting billions of dollars in government funding to not be able to go to the moon themselves either.

Would imagine that NASA will work on a "manned moon mission"-capability no matter what others do, even if they themselves are buying the services from other, hence the COTS initiative, just as a backup.

They want to go with the cheapest option like everyone else, although they are more or less required to keep something "in-house developed" as a backup to justify the billon of dollars being spent. You also have to remember that NASA research is being made available to other companies as an investment in the future.